Porky’s Place, meanwhile, has a special page devoted to “Women Behaving Badly,” (WBB) a category capacious enough not only to include stories about female perps — most recently, a woman who allegedly managed to taser both her brother and herself — but snide attacks on Oprah Winfrey, Jennifer Aniston and Kim Kardashian for offending in various ways Porky’s apparently quite delicate sensibilities.

The Men’s Rights subreddit, on Reddit.com, meanwhile, so routinely features WBB posts that the moderator has written up a little FAQ in order to try to rebut those who regularly point out, quite rightly, that random stories about random women committing random crimes don’t really have anything to do with men’s rights. Not so, says the moderator:

What follows is a rambling collection of individual news items and dubious statistics that really prove nothing more than that the FAQ’s author has his own set of prejudices he’s trying to justify.

But the entire premise of his FAQ is a bit loopy. I haven’t met many people, male or female, who actually think that women are “more fragile, gentle, loving, caring, honest, and … morally superior to men.” I have met lots of people who think men, on average, are more violent than women, on average. They believe that because it’s true. The vast majority of violent crimes are committed by men.

Homicide? Men are responsible for almost ten times as many murders as women, according to figures from the Department of Justice. They are also killed more often than women, but almost always by other men. What about those evil wives and girlfriends who are killing men in their sleep? An MRA boogey-woman. As the DOJ notes, only “about 3% of male murder victims were killed by an intimate.”

How about the particularly awful crime of child murder? Looking at all children under the age of five who were murdered from 1976-2005, we discover that 54% were killed by fathers or male acquaintances, and 29% by mothers. (Most of the rest were also killed by men.)

Rape? Again according to DOJ figures, nearly 98% of rapists and attempted rapists are men. MRAs suggest that rape by women is vastly underreported, which is no doubt true, but rapes of women by men are also vastly underreported as well; we don’t really know by how much, in either case. Men make up 10% of all rape victims, true, but their rapists are almost always other men. No matter how you crunch the numbers, no matter how you spin the results, the overwhelming majority of rapists are male.

Domestic violence? It’s a little more complicated — and I will deal with it in more detail in a future post — but, again, the vast majority of serious abusers are men. “Women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured in acts of intimate violence than are men,” notes one researcher. “Husbands have higher rates of the most dangerous and injurious forms of violence, their violent acts are repeated more often, they are less likely to fear for their own safety, and women are financially and socially locked into marriage to a much greater extent than men.”

All this is not to say that women aren’t capable of horrific crimes. Of course they are. But the notion that men commit far more violent crimes than women isn’t a prejudice, it’s a fact. That, and not some sentimental notion that women are as pure as the driven snow, is the reason that most crime stories in the papers have men in the starring role as villains.

The effect of all this selective reporting on the part of MRA sites, which trumpet every grisly story of women-gone-bad and completely ignore the much larger number of stories about evil men, is to further an atmosphere of hysterical lady-phobia amongst their readers. It’s no wonder that so many MRAs have started talking about “marriage strikes” and “Men Going Their Own Way.”

And so, as a kind of corrective to all of these Women Behaving Badly posts, I am launching a new feature, called Men Behaving Worse.

>child murder by biological fathers is lumped together with other men living with the biological mother in order to make that statistic.""Women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured in acts of intimate violence than are men,""that doesn't matter if women were the ones who started it in majority of the cases."But the notion that men commit far more violent crimes than women isn't a prejudice, it's a fact. "then what's the problem with accepting that men are also far ahead when it comes to being at the top of the social hierarchies?"That, and not some sentimental notion that women are as pure as the driven snow, is the reason that most crime stories in the papers have men in the starring role as villains."but women aren't even shown as villains, it's rather she must have been suffering emotionally and generally due to a man. If you want to say that women commit crimes due to suffering meted out from the men in their lives then let men have the same recourse too.and does DOJ includes the women teachers who sleep with their under-ages students as raped? and do women undergo the daily shaming that men undergo for crimes of a few? perhaps the women who are injured/killed in DV would benefit much more if they were told not to hit their partners rather than the other way round.

>I agree with the above comment that you've quoted the child murder statistics in a very misleading way. Males are responsible for 63% of child murders. The 81% of non-parental murders by males is offset by fathers being responsible for only 52% of parental murders. By improperly adding "other male acquaintances" to the figure for fathers, you've concealed the fact that the figures for fathers and mothers are almost the same.

>"The issue was male vs female violence, not mother vs. father violence. So obviously I combined fathers and other men. I haven't concealed anything."The overall ratio of male to female perpetrated child murder is in reality a little over three to two. The figures you chose to quote: 54% compared to 29% on the one hand and 81% on the other misleadingly suggest a higher ratioStrictly speaking you didn't conceal anything because you linked to your source, but, as I'm sure you're aware, not everyone will click through, and even fewer will drill down into the figures to find out what they really show.

>How on earth was that misleading? I used the numbers available from the govt. and linked to the source. The source didn't break down the numbers cleanly male vs. female, so I combined father and male acquaintances into one male category. Obviously 54% and 29% don't add up to to 100% I added the 81% figure, given by the source, simply to indicate that the remaining deaths were mostly caused by males. There was no attempt on my part to cover up female child murderers. Anyone reading what I wrote would see very clearly that mothers do indeed commit a very significant minority of child murders.

>"How on earth was that misleading? I used the numbers available from the govt. and linked to the source. The source didn't break down the numbers cleanly male vs. female,"Yes it did, in the table immediately below the statistics you quoted from."so I combined father and male acquaintances into one male category. Obviously 54% and 29% don't add up to to 100% I added the 81% figure, given by the source, simply to indicate that the remaining deaths were mostly caused by males."The remaining deaths – i.e., excluding those by mothers, fathers, and male acquaintances – are 55% male-perpetrated, not 81%. The 81% figure includes male acquaintances. You've included them twice.You ask how this is misleading? Well, you seem to have mislead yourself. Inattentive readers are likely to come away the same impression – that the remaining deaths are overwhelmingly male-perpetrated, when they're not.

>"the entire premise of his FAQ is a bit loopy. I haven't met many people, male or female, who actually think that women are "more fragile, gentle, loving, caring, honest, and … morally superior to men.""In respect of "moral superiority" Barbara Ehrenreich disagrees:Th[e] strategy and vision [of naive feminism] rested on the assumption, implicit or stated outright, that women were morally superior to men…She goes on to quote a Journalist, Mary Jo Melone:Feminism taught me 30 years ago that not only had women gotten a raw deal from men, we were morally superior to them."She may have learned it 30 years previously, but she didn't unlearn it until 2004. I didn't see a great sea-change in feminist attitudes at that time either, Ehrenreich's and Melone's disillusionment notwithstanding.As for "fragility", that's a synonym for vulnerability. While I disagree more or less completely with Drew's analysis, I agree with the basic observation that the women are percieved as vulnerable in "legal, media and societal systems".

>As I said, I haven't met many people who believe that. That doesn't mean there aren't a few who do. But the vast majority of feminists I've met in the last 20 years or so do not think that women are angels or anything close to angels.Also, I think you're misread Ehrenreich's own history here. As she put it, "I never believed that women were innately gentler and less aggressive than men." The "naive feminism" she talks about was widespread in the 1970s, and it sounds as though tiny traces of it lingered on in Ehrenreich until Abu Ghraib, but it's been under steady criticism from less-naive feminists for decades, and at this point in time there aren't many of those kinds of feminists left.

>Oh, and on the 81%, I think it's my comment that was confusing, not the original article. My comment said: "I added the 81% figure, given by the source, simply to indicate that the remaining deaths were *mostly* caused by males." I wasn't saying that 81% of the remainder were caused by men, just most. And that, as you note, is true. I'll reword that part of the original post to remove the 81% figure; like I said, I'm not trying to confuse anyone or overstate the % of murders committed by men.

>"Rape? Again according to DOJ figures, nearly 98% of rapists and attempted rapists are men. MRAs suggest that rape by women is vastly underreported, which is no doubt true, but rapes of women by men are also vastly underreported as well; we don't really know by how much, in either case."Which renders your 98% statistic – a ratio between two "vastly underreported" figures, rather suspect, doesn't it?"Men make up 10% of all rape victims, true, but their rapists are almost always other men. "They're 10% of victins according to a study which is severely underestimating rape prevalence. According to probably the best measure that’s ever been taken of national rape prevalence in the USA, men were 23.5% of victims in the survey year.Unfortunately "the best" survey didn't ask men if they had been coerced into vaginal sex. Only women got asked that question.That's a serious omission. According to one survey of college students, (which I can't cite off the top of my head, sorry), more men than women reported being coerced into vaginal sex by their partners.

>Oh, and another thing: I suggest you take any statistics from NCVC with a pinch of salt. At the very least, verify them with their source. Their figures for prison rape, for example, are completely bogus. The 22% figure is not an annual rate, did not originate with HRW, does not refer to rape and is an outlier in the scholarly literature. I don't know where 420,000 figure came from.

>"I'll reword that part of the original post to remove the 81% figure; like I said, I'm not trying to confuse anyone or overstate the % of murders committed by men."You should also add the number of female-aquaintance-perpetrated to those by the mother.Better still, why not just quote the percentages for men and women overall. They're not difficult to calculate.

>Rape statistics (and abuse statistics) are inherently problematic; the kinds of issues you're bringing up would be better dealt with in a future post, and they will be. The point as far as this post went was simply to say that, yes, the overwhelming majority of rapists are male.

>Me:"According to one survey of college students, (which I can't cite off the top of my head, sorry), more men than women reported being coerced into vaginal sex by their partners."Ah the dangers of relying upon memory when reporting research finding. In fact, the study found that more men than women reported being physically forced into vaginal sex by their hetrosexual partners. Specifically 2.1% of men against 1.6% of women. But more women than men reported being verbally coerced.Similarly, more men (2.4%) than women (1.6%) reported being physically forced into oral or anal intercourse by their opposite-sex partners.My point is not to argue that this is the definitive study into the question – there are others, using different methodology, which make different findings. My point is that we really don't know how much female-perpetrated rape there is, because by and large, researchers haven't looked for it. All of the major studies into rape prevalence suffer from one or more of the the following flaws:1. They do not consider female perpetrators at all.2. They do not consider male victims at all.3. They do not use behaviourally specific screening questions.4. They contextualise the subject matter in ways that are likely to lead to underreporting by men in particular (as well as by women.)5. They exclude people residing in institutions6. They operationally define rape in ways that exclude acts against male victims and by female perpetrators, while including comparable acts against female victims or by male perpetrators.The National Violence against Women Survey for example operationally defines the act of forcing ones genitals into another persons mouth to be rape, only if the perpetrator is male. An act of forced PIV or PIA is rape, only if person with the penis in question is the forcer. It is not rape if that person is the forcee.

>>My point is that we really don't know how much female-perpetrated rape there is, because by and large, researchers haven't looked for it.Well, you know what? We "really don't know" all sorts of things about the world. We don't understand what makes people happy. We don't know what percentage of people are gay. We do the best we can with the data we have, and we hope that the people researching these subjects begin to fill in the holes. Nevertheless, I am comfortable with the conclusion that men commit the vast majority of rapes in the world. (Just as I am comfortable saying that the vast majority of people are not gay.) I cannot say with certainty what the percentages are, and I indicated that in the piece, though I probably could have put more caveats in there than I did. If a new wave of scholarship proves me wrong on this point, I will change my tune.

>"We "really don't know" all sorts of things about the world."There's a big difference between the things we don't know because we haven't examined them, and the gaps in our knowledge left after a subject has been examined."I am comfortable with the conclusion that men commit the vast majority of rapes in the world."That's a statement of personal psychology, not an argument supporting the claim. Most people are comfortable with their own gender stereotypes.

>Black widows usually avoid suspicion from the police until they've murdered their 6th or 7th victim. I recall hearing this on either The FBI Files or Cold Case Files. What this means is the figures for the incident rate of woman-on-man homicide are dubious and unreliable. This fact proves that the methods used by the police are ill-equipped to spot woman-on-man homicide. I'd argue that this is the main reason the figures are so skewed. Why? Because not all black widows go on to kill 6 or so men — only a few of them rally up such a high number. This means only the select few who go on to kill 6 or so men are likely to be caught. The ones who kill less than 6 stand a good chance of avoiding detection. So Mr Futrelle, can you now see why the figures are so one-sided? And don't get me started on the amount of woman-on-child murder that are listed as SIDS!

>Look at what the Administration for Children and Families has to say about child homicide:"Perpetrator RelationshipMore than 70 percent (71.0%) of child fatalities were caused by one or more parents.5 More than one-quarter (26.6%) of fatalities were perpetrated by the mother acting alone.6 Child fatalities with unknown or missing perpetrator relationship data accounted for 17.3 percent."Child Maltreatment 2008. Chapter 4: Fatalities; p57http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm08/cm08.pdfIn case you didn't know Mr Futrelle, the ACF is a Governmental department. If you're going to cite the BOJ, then have the balls to cite the ACF too. Doing anything less makes you look like an ideologically-driven bigot who uses selective statistics to support his view.

>Fatal child abuseChild deaths resulting from parental abuse are unique among homicides in terms of the high proportion of women offenders. Female offenders are usually biological mothers, whereas male perpetrators are usually de facto or step parents to the child victim (Alder & Polk, 2001). It has been found that de facto or stepparents kill children in their care at a much greater rate than biological parents, with many more stepchildren killed by stepfathers than by stepmothers (Daly & Wilson, 1994; Strang, 1995). The greater rate of harming by stepfathers is in part due to small children rarely residing with biological fathers and stepmothers (Daly & Wilson, 1994).Most researchers who have used police homicide records suggest that the majority of perpetrators are males (Lyman et al., 2003). However, many deaths due to maltreatment may not meet the criminal definition of homicide, particularly deaths due to neglect (Finkelhor, 1997; Lawrence & Irvine, in press). The US National Incidence Study (Sedlak & Broadhurst, 1996), which is based on child maltreatment cases that include neglect, showed that almost 80 per cent of fatal maltreatment cases were attributed to female perpetrators. Studies have shown that mothers are predominantly responsible for neonaticides (death of child aged under 24 hours) (Creighton, 1995, Finkelhor & Dziuba-Leatherman, 1994). These women tend to be young or immature women who are ill-equipped to deal with pregnancy and the care of a child (Finkelhor, 1997).There is evidence that men are most often responsible for child deaths that result from physical assault (Ewing, 1997). A characteristic of these cases is the apparent attempt to punish or discipline in response to the child's behaviour (e.g., crying), rather than an intent to kill the child (Adler & Polk, 2001).http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs7/rs7.html

>Black widows usually avoid suspicion from the police until they've murdered their 6th or 7th victim."Uh, CITATION NEEDED. All this stuff about black widows is fantasy on your part.As for the rest, yes, mothers commit a significant percentage of child murders. THIS IS WHAT MY POST ALREADY SAYS. Comparatively, they commit more child murders than they commit other murders. Again, THIS IS WHAT MY POST ALREADY SAYS. But they do not commit more child murders than men, and none of what you posted suggests they do.Mothers also spend, on average, a fuckload more time with kids; there are many many more single mothers raising kids than single fathers, so it makes sense that most deaths by neglect are due to mothers, because they're the ones caring for the kids (and sometimes failing badly at that). When you control for the amount of time spent with kids, it's more dangerous for young kids to be around male caregivers than it is to be around female ones. I'll dig up that stat when I have more time.Also, the stuff you posted about stepfathers? I don't know if you realize this, but stepfathers are, you know, men. The point I was making was that a higher proportion of child murders were committed by men than women. Mothers and fathers commit child murder at about the same rate; but other men (including stepfathers) commit the vast majority of the rest of the child murders.

>"Uh, CITATION NEEDED. All this stuff about black widows is fantasy on your part." — FutrelleLOLDid I didn't I tell you that the statement was made on The FBI Files or Cold Case Files? Yes I did.Here it is again:"I recall hearing this on either The FBI Files or Cold Case Files."If I recall correctly, the person who made the comment was a law enforcement officer. The fact that you've written it off as "fantasy" proves that you're an ideologically driven bigot. You refuse to accept this information because it clashes with your agenda. But if you're still delsuional enough to believe I live in a fantasy world, then take a look at this:"The typical pattern of a black widow killer is to murder six to eight victims in a period of 10 to 15 years. Numbers of victims have been known to be higher in areas where law enforcement is minimal and investigators are either less vigilant or less suspicious."The aforementioned excerpt is from Domestic Homicide of Male Spouses by Females: A Review for Death Investigators. You can see the full article here:http://www.forensicnursemag.com/articles/391lifedeath.html

>"As for the rest, yes, mothers commit a significant percentage of child murders. THIS IS WHAT MY POST ALREADY SAYS. Comparatively, they commit more child murders than they commit other murders. Again, THIS IS WHAT MY POST ALREADY SAYS. But they do not commit more child murders than men, and none of what you posted suggests they do."A child is more likely to be murdered by its biological mother than by their biological father. Saying "more men commit murders" is a cunning attempt to hide the fact that children are safest when they live with their father. It's a known fact that children of single mother households are more likely to be maltreated, physically abused, murdered, and; have a higher incidence of alcoholism, dropping out of school, mental illness, psychopathy and suicide. Single mothers are responsible for their children's welfare. This means they need to reject all dangerous men who approach them for sex and a relationship. Any single mother who allows a dangerous man to come within 1 foot of her child is just as culpable as him for any violence that he inflicts upon it. These sort of women are just selfish, useless, uncaring monsters who place more emphasis on having their clitoris tickled by a thuggish man — mostly because only these sort of guys turn them on — than they do about doing what's right for their children. All of these women ought to be castrated or hanged.You ought to be ashamed of yourself for not holding single mothers accountable for their deplorable behaviour. People like you are the reason single-motherism has caused more problems for children than anything else.

>"Also, the stuff you posted about stepfathers? I don't know if you realize this, but stepfathers are, you know, men. The point I was making was that a higher proportion of child murders were committed by men than women. Mothers and fathers commit child murder at about the same rate; but other men (including stepfathers) commit the vast majority of the rest of the child murders."The point I was making is that children are safest when they live with their biological father. I don't deny that stepfathers are a problem. I just don't see any point in saying, "more stepfathers commit child murder, blah blah" because it doesn't solve anything. Arguing against single motherism and denouncing single-mothers might lead to less women exposing their children to dangerous men. If so, then this is beneficial to children.

>Women Who Kill Intimates for MoneyPeople have committed murder for money, power and material gain since the dawn of time. It should be expected that women are not absent from this group. To deny that a woman could kill for money is to both deny historical accounts of women who have done this in the past, and to deny the nature of the human being who does not always make the wisest of choices.There are two basic styles of women who kill for money. The black widow and the contract killer or manipulative killer have not been studied in depth; however, their crimes most assuredly occur, and their deeds have been documented as the aberration of all that defines womanhood, motherhood and life partner. These women are considered to be some of the most intelligent, resourceful and careful killers in the realm of domestic homicide, and it is theorized that many of their crimes go undetected. The true numbers of their successful homicides are not reflected in history and crime reports. They are known to use a variety of methods to kill, and are highly dispassionate about the murders they commit.Black widow killers are frequently young, often starting their criminal pattern in their early to mid-20s. Named after the poisonous spider that kills her mate and eats him, black widow women have been known to kill other individuals in addition to their husbands and intimates, such as children, other family members or anyone else with whom they’ve developed a close relationship. The most common method of homicide for the black widow involves using a variety of poisons. Some poisons may be those of convenience, such as rat poison. Others may be obscure, and be difficult to obtain and utilize. A woman of this intellect will have spent hours studying the reactions and effects of poisons and have searched for ways to have the poison mimic other diagnosable illnesses.Still other women have utilized poisonous snakes and insects to make a death look like an accident. Though not a poison per se, black widows have utilized specific agents that a partner is known to be violently allergic to such as nuts, shellfish or bee stings in order to cause the deaths of their husbands. In addition, drug overdose has been utilized a simple method for some of these women who find ways to coerce or trick their partners into committing what appears to be suicide by ingesting too much of the drug.The dominant motive for the black widow is the inheritance of the spouse; however it may not be the only motive. There are instances where the motive could not be determined, and the possibility of some sort of underlying mental pathology was assumed by investigators. The typical pattern of a black widow killer is to murder six to eight victims in a period of 10 to 15 years. Numbers of victims have been known to be higher in areas where law enforcement is minimal and investigators are either less vigilant or less suspicious.14, 11Historical examples of Black Widow killers include women such as Belle Gunness, nicknamed Lady Bluebeard, who killed 49 people, including multiple husbands. This 20th century black widow used various poisons or caused freak accidents to occur to her victims. She was never brought to trial or convicted of her crimes.Lydia Trueblood, who lived in the early 1900s, poisoned and killed five spouses, a brother-in-law, and her own child. What seemed like typhoid or influenza at the time was actually discovered to be the great mimicker of illnesses — arsenic. Another black widow, Rhonda Bell Martin (1932-1956) killed two husbands, her mother and five of her own children. She eventually confessed to her crimes because of autopsy results, and was sentenced to the death penalty, carried out in 1957. 11http://www.forensicnursemag.com/articles/391lifedeath.html

>The Manipulator: Hired Help or Hopeless LoveThere are recognizable patterns within this subset of killers. It is notable that in the past, most women have hired men or adolescent boys to kill for them. Their victims are often husbands or ex-husbands. Some have been boyfriends and occasionally this group of women has contracted to kill their fathers. The greatest commonality among this group is the existence of a fairly large insurance policy on the person the woman wishes to kill.Women who form this group of killers are never serious suspects in murder cases. It takes some shrewd investigator or subtle evidence to expose their culpability. Women who kill for money in this fashion often use the manipulation of a lover’s affections in conjunction with a web of lies in order to convince the lover that there is no other way out than to kill her husband. Other women in this category simply commandeer the assistance of young adolescents or men from disadvantaged backgrounds to kill their spouse, while still others take no chances and hire a professional killer.http://www.forensicnursemag.com/articles/391lifedeath.html

>And how many of these "black widows" are there? Is there any evidence they're actually more than a tiny fraction of the total number of murderers? Again, my point isn't that women never kill, but that overall the vast majority of murders are committed by men, a fact the article you refer to acknowledges in its very first paragraph.

>"And how many of these "black widows" are there? Is there any evidence they're actually more than a tiny fraction of the total number of murderers?"Since only a small fraction of "black widows" are ever caught, I'd say it's impossible to conclude how many murders are committed by this type of killer. The "stats" you cite are based on age-old methods that were honed on catching men who kill. Citing those stats is about as objective as citing a KKK publication on race."Again, my point isn't that women never kill, but that overall the vast majority of murders are committed by men, a fact the article you refer to acknowledges in its very first paragraph."Again, my point isn't that men don't kill, but that we cannot say most murderers are men because only a small amount of women who kill are caught. If you reckon it's foolish to write off the murder statistics for this reason then don't go on about rape being a highly common crime. Why? Because if we were to use your logic, then you'd have to admit that the low conviction rate for rape defendants who go to trial is "proof" that rape is one of the remotest crimes on the planet — you are saying that the statistics represent the absolute truth. Feminazis and manginas like you try to divert attention away from this by saying most rapes go unreported, yet every one of you cunts scoff at the idea that most women who kill go undetected. This sort of cognitive dissonance is the reason people no longer take feminazism seriously. Sorry son, but your prejudice is so bright it can be seen from Mars.

>"Citing crime stats from the govt. is equivalent to quoting the KKK on race?"In today's society, yes. Would you cite rape statistics from the 19th century? No. Why? Because many innocent African-Americans were convicted for no other reason than the colour of their skin. Citing those statistics and saying they are "proof" that African-Americans were violent rapists back then would lead to all sorts of liberal hysteria about "racism". Today's Governent is almost as prejudicial against men. I know you'll deny it — librals always do when their moronic arguments are backed into a corner — though anyone who is objective and insightful knows the truth.

>A few decades ago it was thought that women were capable of sexually abusing children. It was also believed that men couldn't rear children. Some judges still carry these stereotypical beliefs with them. It leads to the prejudicial ones giving impunity to female defendants. You'll never see this in the official statistics.I think the best judges are women. Not all of them are good, though some of them are okay. The feminist ones give impunity to women just as often as the chivlrous male judges do, though the ones that aren't feminist tend to treat female defendants more equally to men. The Australian Bureau of Statistics admitted that convicted women receive lighter punishments than their male counterparts.

>Another reason people shouldn't take governmental data seriously is the fact there is no such thing as equal justice for everyone. There's a class divide in society that allows rich, privileged persons to gain a large degree of impunity that ordinary citizens can only dream about. Then there's the fact that women gain impunity under many areas of the law. Feminist laws and feminist policies can turn murderous women into "victims" who aren't considered murderers, too. It's not all that uncommon for women or elite men to use an ordinary/desperate man to commit murder, robbery, etc. The people who plan out these crimes — many of them are female — are just as culpable as the men who carry them out. You spoke about most child maltreatment being perpetrated by women because they spend more time with them. The logic you used is that people commit crimes when they are burdened with responsibility. In that case, one could argue that men are more likely than women to perpetrate violence because society expects them to be tough, strong, competitive, and resilient. Women are the ones who force men to live by these standards — you don't see them choosing weak, feminine men over strong, resilient ones very regularly, do you? Forcing men to abide by a dangerous lifestyle like this can cause some of them to follow the wrong path. The women who send these sort of men down the wrong are just as culpable as the men themselves. In my opinion, none of this will change until women refrain from setting unrealistic standards for men. Every time a woman rewards a thug with sex and chooses a thuggish man over a genuinely nice one — which is the general rule — is a reinforcement to all violent bullies that "might makes right". Violent men will continue to be violent bullies until women stop rewarding them for it. I'm not saying the violent men aren't cuplable for their actions — they are and they should be punished severely — just pointing out that the cycle won't change until all components of it are deconstructed. This means women need to play their role.

From the perspective of civil liberties and individual rights, propagating a “x category of people tend to perpetuate x crimes most often” line of argument is extremely unfortunate. Even if true, it will contribute to a situation in which the presumption of innocence is whittled away for people falling into that category. Take for example current anti-Muslim hysteria. Is it partially due to the “truth” of the matter that a large number of recent terrorist acts (as we currently define them anyway) stem in some way from Islamic religious fundamentalism? Yes, absolutely. Does that justify profiling individual Muslims or stripping away their presumption of innocence? Of course not. Similarly, men accused of rape, domestic violence, any other sexual abuse, etc. should be offered the full presumption of innocence as with any other crime, with all the attendant consequences, and the chance to rebut their accusers. Agreed?

David, I think it is time to revisit your comment here: “according to DOJ figures, nearly 98% of rapists and attempted rapists are men. MRAs suggest that rape by women is vastly underreported, which is no doubt true, but rapes of women by men are also vastly underreported as well; we don’t really know by how much, in either case. Men make up 10% of all rape victims, true, but their rapists are almost always other men.”

To be fair, you did say in a later comment, “if a new wave of scholarship proves me wrong on this point, I will change my tune.”

The 2010 NISVS survey has demonstrated that women are a significant percentage of rapists, if you properly count “made to penetrate” as rape. Furthermore, it demonstrates that the majority of male victims are raped by women, contrary to your claim that their rapists are “almost always other men.” Have you changed your tune?

It was progressive MRAs, not feminists, who suggested that women could be a significant percentage of rapists. The NISVS survey implies that they were right, and you were wrong.

Donate to the Mammoth!

We Hunted the Mammoth is an ad-free, reader-supported publication written and published by longtime journalist David Futrelle, who has been tracking, dissecting, and mocking the growing misogynistic backlash since 2010, exposing the hateful ideologies of Men’s Rights Activists, incels, alt-rightists and many others.

We depend on support from people like you. Please consider a donation or a monthly pledge by clicking below! there's no need for a PayPal account.

Send comments, questions, and tips for stories to me at dfutrelle@gmail.com, or by clicking here